what is your standard 3-betting range against 3x and unknown?

what hands do you call pre with?

please post if you are beating the limits you play or not.

i dont play nl but heres some advice

the more they fold pre and post the more u wanna 3b

i imagine a good 3bet % would be 14-20%

At 4bb stacksize I 3bet 22+ Tx+ 92s+ 95o+ 82s+ 85o+ 73s+ 75o+ 63s+ 65o 53s+ 43 unadjusted for rake

i already know that. atm i am 3-betting polarized, someone said i shouldnt as a default. polarized means 66-88+ AT-AJ+ (KQ) and suited trash like J5s,46s and offsuited connectors like 78o

ok, a quick hint which I believe to be the case.

In NLHU, "if EV(3bet)>EV(call), then EV(call)>EV(fold)", is true for any hand preflop, facing normal betsizing, at 100bb or deeper.

so you say there are no hands that cant be called but can be 3-bet right?

i would say you are propably right >90% of the time. i should add this thought to my gameplan

if you think about it 3-betting a trashy hand is like calling it and c/r the flop, it will work the same amount of time. it is not exactly the same, but it is more equal than not.

needs proof.

"proof"

Suppose there is a hand that can be 3-bet but not called.

we are investing 8 BB to win 4 BB profitably (3x->9x) pre but cant risk 2 BB to see a flop for 4 BB already in the pot.

that sounds pretty odd.

for this to be true, villian needs to fold to a ton of 3-bets but playing very good once he is at the flop with the initiative.

you could say this polarized 3-betting strategy should just be used against opponents who wont enter a big pot without a very good hand. but if that is true we can c/r the flop as well, risking 15 BB (2 preflop and 13 with the c/r) to win 9, giving us much better odds on our play

Well, you can't prove that it's not true!

for the most part i think preflop is a primitive street and every ape can learn to play the preflop game. exploting people is much easier post for a good player so he should keep the pot small on the easy preflop street and keep the 3-betting game limited.

im thinking about 2x from now on.

edit: what about a defensive 3-betting strategy, that will just get bumped up if the villian is opening to many hands?

Pretty simplistic way to think about it. Totally ignoring equity, among other things.

of course its simplistic, if i could proof that i had enough knowledge to program a pokerbot that could beat any player in this forum.

but c/r is in a way like 3-betting.

you c/r a draw like 3-bet a suited connector/suited ace-rag pre.
you c/r a nut draw like 3-bet a AK pre.
you c/r a set/2pair like 3-bet KK pre
you c/r a TPTK like 3-bet TT pre
you c/r total air like 3-bet 48s pre

but: slowplaying after the flop is more common than befor the flop, so you should be more cautios.

this thread is ******ed and you guys ruined a good question.

3 betting is OPP depended.

i've played total fish before that just limp around and will call it off no mater how big or small the pot is. Vs those players you don't even have to 3bet weak hands if you don't want. They will chase any draw and you can just build the pot on the flop to get stacks in.

Vs good OPPs you will need to 3bet more as they are trickier. I generally like to start the match out slow to see who i'm up against and than add in a few 3bets once we get going. A good range is between 8-17% Any lower and it's obv you have a hand and any higher you are gonna get 4bet or floated all the time.

I play NL50 - NL200 - mostly NL50

There is a whole lot between "simplistic" and "knowledgeable enough to program an awesome pokerbot". Aim to be somewhere in the middle.

Thread developed as expected. No one decent is giving a serious answer to those questions.

+1

this was a good question in 2003